How Much Emphasis Do You Put On Defense?

You should be able to prove or disprove your theory by looking at your Team Roster page. Then choose Sim Fielding as it lists how many chances each of your position players had (x chance rolls) and how many they converted into outs. Spoiler alert: The SS position gets more rolls than 2B every time.

Just checked a few recent teams of mine and without an exact comparison of games played, 2B and Ss x chances look very, very close.

Southpaw’s post seemed to imply that the pitcher’s card x chances don’t show up as an x chance for the fielder but that cant be true can it? Or did I misinterpret southpaw’s post?

Fernandez at SS- 43
Gilliam at 2b- 24
https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/fielding/1788567
What irks me more is my hitters have had 100 more rolls on the pitchers cards in the first 30 games.

Not enough

This has been a very interesting thread. Since I raised the question of Wells vs Larkin at SS, I decided to take a look at how they had actually performed offensively and defensively in a series of leagues. I decided to look at this year's 140M team in the Barnstormer tourney, since those leagues are publically available. I chose 140M leagues since the salary cap is high enough that in most leagues, both SS will be used.

Anyway, let's look at offense first. The list below shows the OPS records for Wells vs Larkin in this year's 140M tourney. There are 14 teams, so it's a decent size sample

Wells/Larkin OPS
.855/.829
____/.880 (L only)
.932/.820
.864/.802
.823/.875
.843/.836
.791/.852
.826/.822
.842/.787
.848/___ (W only)
.915/____(W only)
.928/.819
.797/.750
___/____ (neither)

Overall, as expected, Wells's hitting is better. In the 12 leagues in which he played, Wells topped .800 OPS 10 times. He topped .900 OPS 3 times. His two worst showings were .790+. His best was .932.
Larkin topped .800 OPS 9 times in his 11 seasons. His other two seasons were sub .790. He never topped .900 OPS. His best was .880. Wells had the higher OPS in eight seasons, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot. Larkin was better in 2 seasons.

And, as expected, Larkin's defense is better. Comparing defensive performance took several more steps. So after comparing two seasons, I stopped. I found that fielding results seemed to be pretty consistent

So here are the two teams I checked.
Wells: 119 DP X=224/184 -missed 40 plays
Larkin 137 DP X=199/175 -missed 24 plays

Wells 97 DP X=193/153 -missed 40 plays
Larkin 134 DP X=195/172 -missed 23 plays

Larkin had more DP--in one case +18, and in another case an impressive +37. And Larkin missed fewer plays, in the first case 16 plays and in the other 17. Instinctively, I feel that the stronger DPs may be more important than the missed plays.

So, it's kind of a "you pick 'em." Is Wells' higher offensive potential worth more to you, or is Larkin's consistently superior defense more valuable?

And for the record, when it comes to my own decision about whether to trade Wells or Larkin for the pitcher, I seem to have done better by keeping Wells. This is in a 200M league. Here are the results after 123 games. First OPS
Wells .926/ Larkin .768
Defense
Wells 75 DP X=136/103 -33 missed plays
Larkin 75 DP X=146/128 -18 missed plays
I'm not sure why the DPs are equal. In this case, I'd take Wells with equal DPs and with 15 more missed plays, given Wells's significant offensive edge, but I think I may have just been lucky this time around. Over the long haul, I now think Larkin may indeed be the better choice, but in any given season it could go either way.

Oh, I think he's onto something!

TOP OF INNING 4
0 I.Rodriguez 3-7 Fly Out (CF) b-0 F9
1 B.Gardner 6-7 Fly Out (RF) b-0 F9
2 R.Ordonez 2-7 Single (LF) b-1 F9
2 1 G.Perry 3-7 Ground Out (2B) b-0 F9

And yes, the theory seems nonsensical, but so is a lot of the injury conspiracies people have posted about.

Always inclined to take the better offensive player, but like viewing defense as a team collective and strong up the middle where we have the most dice rolls. So, if I have a Wells (or Arky Vaughan) at SS (instead of Larkin), might pair him with a 1 at 2b. Like a 1 in CF. Not too worried about D in corner spots, but don't like 4s in most cases. Team defense building is a collective.

On the contrary, here's a $140M team where i experimented with good hitters over defense -- 47-37 so far: https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1786820

Going back once more just to the topic of defense....with a few (too many) words about gbX roll results on a pitcher card.

X results are of course where your fielders' defensive ratings most manifestly come into play.

On both sides (L & R) of the vast majority of pitcher cards, there is one gb(2b)X on a 7 roll. (I'm going to guesstimate 90% of them.) When 2 6-sided dice are rolled, there is a 16.667% chance the result will be 7. Because a 7 is the highest probability result on any given dice roll, one concludes correctly that over the course of the season a good fielding second baseman will prevent more runners reaching base than a poor one.

Let's look at shortstop now. You have probably noticed that each side (L/R) of most pitcher cards have two gb(SS)x results, on a 5 or 9 roll AND a 4 or 10 roll. The probability of a gb(SS)X result on a 5 or 9 roll is 11.111%, and that of a 4 or 10 roll is 8.333%.

11.111 + 8.333 = 19.444%. So, on the typical pitcher card, there is more probability of a gb(SS)X than a gb(2B)X, about 14% more. This would suggest that as important as a slick-fielding second baseman is, it is even MORE important to have an ace gloveman at SS.

But...I think that's wrong. Why?

Let's roll the dice and assume the single, red, 6-sided die has already fallen on the pitcher card. Now, take the 2 white dice and rattle them around in your fist. As they tumble from your hand, there is a much greater chance of a 7 roll than any other number. The probability of a 7 result on any single roll of 2 dice is between 1/3 to 1/2 more likely than a 4, a 5, a 9, or a 10 result. Thus each and any roll of two 6-sided dice in SOM -- a game with a finite number of rolls -- would seem always more likely to result in a gb(2b)X than a gb(SS)X on a typical pitcher card.

Only a little bit more torturous arithmetic, I promise. On some pitcher cards, the gb(2b)X result is on an 8 or 6 roll. The probability of either an 8 or 6 roll goes down to 13.89%. To compensate when that is the case, there is also a gb(2b)X result on a 2 or 12 roll. The probability of either a 2 or 12 roll is 2.78%. 13.89 + 2.78 = 16.67, same as when there is one lone gb(2b)X result on a 7 roll.

But again, the probability of a 7 on any single roll is greater than that of a 8 or a 6 or a 2 or a 12. So I can see an advantage in favoring pitcher cards with gb(2b)X on an 8 roll instead of a 7 roll, if a Jose Vidro or Matt Carpenter and not a Lajoie or Morgan is playing 2B.

Sometimes on each side of a pitcher card there is a gb(SS)X on a 7 roll, with another at a 2 or 12. To me, a pitcher card with a gb(SS)X at 7 is to be avoided, especially if I have a non-elite defender at SS. The probability of a particular roll hitting 7 and having Cecil Travis fire the ball through Al Oliver and into the stands is intolerably high. That's why I might reject a pitcher card with a 7-gb(SS)X and put up with the rock hands of a Travis or Jimmie Dykes at SS, but put up with the weak stick of a Dick Egan or Bobby Richardson on the other side of the keystone.

Some pitcher cards have a gb(2b)X AND a gb(SS)X on a 7 roll on each side. Egad, I run from those cards! Unless I have 1's at both SS and 2B, a very rare occurrence because 1's are very costly.

Otherwise, why put that much vagary in Hal's lap? 7 rolls on pitcher cards should result in strikeouts, popouts, 1 gb(2b)X, and, if you've drafted well, a golden gbA. That 7 roll must never result in a gb(SS)X (unless Ozzie's standing there), a split-chance TR or HR, or the much-overlooked nuisance of a gbC.

What does this mean? Well, for me, it means I put a greater priority on defense at 2B than at SS. Because dice roll after dice roll, your defense at 2B is likely to be put to the test more frequently.

thank you, someone poopooed your comment, but I actually found things of value and revelation.....along with everything else in this thread, thank participants for sharing.....i have started to place more emphasis on defense, but still dont know where to draw the lines

So at then end of all this is just how the dice fall.

So at then end of all this is just how the dice fall.

Indubitably!

Thanks for everyone's patience. I didn't want the thread of 'how much emphasis do you put on defense' to unspool without discussing gbX.

It's impossible to discuss X plays without delving into stem-winding talk of probability, so that made my post long.

I should have stressed my respect for the inviolable laws of probability. I acknowledge the fact that if I had from tonight's games until doomsday to roll the dice, I would see up to 2.777% more gbSS(X) dice rolls than gb(2B)X rolls.

But every SOM game has a finite number of dice rolls. The dice stop rolling, even in extra inning games.

Within that smallish sample of dice rolls, on any roll a 7 is more likely to pop up than another number -- also inviolate. And 7 rolls are where gb(2b)X results live on the majority of pitcher cards.

So for me, it is that which governs my tolerance of risk. Meaning, everything else being equal, I put a better glove at 2B than at SS.

For science, I decided to see what would happen if I built an extreme defense-forward team with a *total* of 20 projected errors in the starting lineup. I put my team in a park that would use home runs to its advantage, so it's not a total pitching park experiment, but I'm hopeful that the results give me something to consider in the future. Posting here in case anyone else is interested in following:

https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1790232

**EDITED** I'll post a different team some other time. Mark makes a good point. My thinking was to try and squeeze every single off the board that I could, but in a salary cap league where the winner is (usually) the one who maximizes values out of his roster, I'm leaving a lot of money on the table with this team.

Leeroy-

You are wasting the benefit of your team defense using a low singles environment. I can tell you from years of experience, defense, plus hr's, plus fenway '67 is a winning combination. Basically you need to maximize the likelihood of turning double plays, by playing in a high singles park. I didn't check your catcher but a strong arm is a must in this strategy as well.

By playing in that park you have neutralized your advantage over other teams.

Mark